PKK, I think we're getting in the region of preferences with the Fleming percentages. I mean TLD may have the short story source material mostly intact, but it's buried underneath the rest of the very (IMO) non-Fleming script. Not sure there's that much objective difference in, say, the LALD breakdown...just, how do you prefer your Fleming sandwich, with the meat stretched thin or simply not much meat to begin with? Either way, we ain't talking a FRWL/GF/OHMSS/TB/DN-type treatment, with comparatively minor differences novel-to-screen. There was a bit more Fleming in TLD than say AVTAK, but it wasn't sustained in any meaningful way IMO. Would that it were, just think there was more unrealized potential then fulfilled promise with Dalton, however noble and Flemingesque the intent.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
This article off hmss.com grades the films on their faithfulness to Fleming. TLD gets an A.
FYEO got an A+
Did you know that Fleming, when he signed over the rights to the books, indicated that they could use only the title from TSWLM? I found it kind of funny that the 1967 CR contained more Fleming than 3 of the other films put together.
This article off hmss.com grades the films on their faithfulness to Fleming. TLD gets an A.
FYEO got an A+
And deservedly so. Intellectual integrity demands I grant FYEO that and I happily concede that it's probably the 1981 Bond film's strongest redeeming feature, along with the OHMSS references, the locations and stunts, and a strong & beautiful leading lady in Carole Bouquet's Melina(who should have appeared opposite Dalton's Bond IMHO but that's a subject for another thread). However, that anti-climactic final 1/3(the Meteora battle is probably my least favorite Bond final battle), Lynn Holly Johnson's annoying Bibi, and the film's failure to milk the ATAC threat against the UK for more suspense and excitement prevent me from liking it as much as almost everybody else(or at least it seems that way) does.
I'm guess I'm a fan who when he wants to watch a faithful-to-Fleming Bond film, I want Connery, Dalton or (now) Craig playing Bond instead of Moore and if I want to watch a Moore Bond I want to see a silly action comedy with little fidelity to Fleming(though OP does deservedly get an A- and I do love that one). Just the kinda fan I am I guess.
However, that anti-climactic final 1/3(the Meteora battle is probably my least favorite Bond final battle), Lynn Holly Johnson's annoying Bibi, and the film's failure to milk the ATAC threat against the UK for more suspense and excitement prevent me from liking it as much as almost everybody else(or at least it seems that way) does.
I'm guess I'm a fan who when he wants to watch a faithful-to-Fleming Bond film, I want Connery, Dalton or (now) Craig playing Bond instead of Moore and if I want to watch a Moore Bond I want to see a silly action comedy with little fidelity to Fleming(though OP does deservedly get an A- and I do love that one). Just the kinda fan I am I guess.
Your final point is fair enough. As to what you said about the ATAC, I would submit that many of us like about FYEO that it doesn't get to the point where there is an immediate threat, like Bond having to disarm a nuclear bomb type thing. The threat is a little more ambiguous. I do love silly Moore Bonds but also enjoy this relatively grim one. And I think the scaling scene is wonderfully suspenseful. As for Lynn Holly's acting, I did get a kick out of how in the voiceover Moore praises her figure skating and skiing, strangely failing to mention her acting, lol. He certainly has a way.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Her presence in that movie was justified entirely with Moore's line about buying her an ice cream lol. That being said I bet Connery's Bond would have jumped into bed with her. )
This article off hmss.com grades the films on their faithfulness to Fleming. TLD gets an A.
FYEO got an A+
Pretty sure Fleming is still spinning in his grave over the teeny-bopper ice skater character...perhaps the most unFleming character ever in the film series IMO. And the other female lead, while very lovely to look at, couldn't act. Intent with FYEO gets an A+, but the execution is more like a D.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Is that right? Well, I've just learnt something new today. Can you please elaborate as to why that is?
Well, I'm no Fleming expert, and I've never read the book, but from what I understand that book was different from all the other books in the series in that it was written from the perspective of a woman and didn't feature Bond until the last 1/3. I can only speculate, but perhaps he never felt confident enough in it. I don't know... (I'm sure someone around here will be able to provide a better explanation.)
TSWLM stands out from all the other Bond stories owing to its first person perspective and the structure of the novel, which places 007 in a supporting role to the heroine/narrator, Vivienne Michel.
Critical reaction at the time was appalling ("morbid", "silly...unpleasant") and the book did not sell as well as its predecessors. In addition, it was banned in some countries.
Fleming's reaction was in effect to pull the plug on the work and let it die. He stipulated to his publishers that there was to be no paperback edition of the novel, and had Broccoli & Saltzman agree that they would only use the title should they get round to filming it. It was only after his death that a paperback was issued following some debate between the publishers and his heirs.
Hi, i've just discovered this fantastic site and this is my first post so go easy on me!!! I thought Dalton was a good Bond but (as its mentioned elsewhere on this thread)he was just a tiny bit lacking in the charisma department. I think both of his films are excellent (tho it took a while for LTK to grow on me
Timothy Dalton is my second favorite Bond after Sean Connery. I think his Bond was more cold, ruthless, detached, edgier, intense, and so forth than Roger Moore before and Pierce Brosnan after him. I thought that Moore and Brosnan were a little too lightweight and tongue in cheek at times. I do think that Dalton came after a long run by Roger Moore. So many people identified Roger Moore and his take on Bond as what Bond was suppose to be like. I think Dalton got stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I do like both of his Bond movies. "The Living Daylights" is my favorite of the two. It's one of my top Bond movies. I do think it and "Licence to Kill" make up for each other. "TLD" lacked strong villains, but "LTK" lacked the exotic locales. Each had its strong points and weaknesses.
I wish that Timothy Dalton would have taken over at least by "A View To A Kill." That's one of my least favorite Bond movies (good theme song though) and I don't think Moore did much to help it. I think he was getting a little old by then and was just going through the motions. Dalton might have been able to do better with it. Honestly I could have seen him do Moore's last couple of films.
Also I could have seen Lazenby staying on after "OHMSS." Connery shouldn't have come back for one last time. Plus he was starting to look pretty bad during this time period. Lazenby should have done a couple of more Bond films. I really wish that Dalton would have taken over for him, but then I hate to see Roger Moore's contribution to the franchise taken away altogether.
As well, I do think it would have been nice to see Dalton have done "Goldeneye." That's my favorite of Brosnan's Bond movies. I think it would have been even better with the way Dalton played the part.
I enjoyed watching Dalton's Bond movies as a teenager. I know a lot of people talked negatively about him then and still do. Recently I rewatched them and realized he was a better Bond than I even remembered. My sister has just gotten into watching the Bond movies. She had always held little interest in them, but "Casino Royale" changed that. So far she's seen all of Brosnan's and Dalton's. She's also seen "Dr. No." She said that Dalton by far is her favorite. She likes him better than Connery, which did surprise me I guess.
I do think Dalton deserves more praise and recognition than he's gotten. It does seem like he's getting that now in hindsight and with Craig's take on Bond in "Casino Royale."
Mmmhmm, and Dalton couldn't have been better if he tried. What a superb performance. I seriously suggest you watch it as soon as possible, if not for anything except the number of familiar faces in the cast.
Sorry, this is part of my post from The Living Daylights thread but I can't articulate my feelings about Dalton's debut any other way!
A Quiet Revolution
When The Living Daylights was released, a quiet revolution happened in the world of James Bond. All of a sudden, what opened up in film Bond were possibilities. A Bond film no longer had to be a circus or a pantomime but could attempt to return to its roots – that of the contemporary, Hitchcock-ian, romantic, intelligent, international, mystery, thriller.
A story murky with recent Iran-Contra-gate topicality, this 15th Eon Bond film was a character-led tale of intrigue that was difficult to summarize for the press. Said press were already antagonized by a new leading man who kept an air of mystery about his personal life. In order to fully appreciate what Timothy Dalton brought to 007, one would have to have been a James Bond fan before he was cast. The long and successful reign of Roger Moore was an achievement in itself but the Press had been rather spoilt by 14 years of media-friendly frolics. Dalton’s distance did not endear him to them. Their view was, “It’s only a Bond film, lighten up.”
However, for the first time, the actor playing Bond had read all 14 Fleming Bond books, researched and knew about Fleming (allegedly keeping a copy of John Pearson’s Fleming biography on his bedside table) and had a keen sense of what he wanted to achieve: something different yet classic.
The Dalton Effect
Upon his announcement as Bond on 6th August 1986, Dalton was a relatively unknown, leading man/working actor. However, this became an important aspect to the thrill of his debut. This lack of knowledge about the actor made his Bond unpredictable. On first viewing, the PTS and the defection in Bratislava were dangerous, involving and atmospheric. When trailing Kara and meeting in her flat, Bond was intense - his careful phrasing making their conversation a chess game of circumstance. When Bond interrogates Pushkin, it is tough and ruthless and even Rubavitch (sic?) is not spared. When Bond is beaten in the Afghan jail, there’s no pithy comeback. Just when one thought a one-liner was coming, it didn’t. To an audience weaned on 14 years of suaveness, this was a revelation. Out of context now, these grace notes are lost.
In TLD, few scenes are written to showcase character. Character is revealed through the plot. Dalton presents Bond as a reluctant yet ruthless romantic protagonist. A man of action and energy, living on the edge, Dalton is in the centre, running, jumping, fighting and shooting with conviction. He details his performance with nuggets of information and emotion:
a) cigarette smoke escaping on hearing Koskov’s report of Smiert Spionam – hot air,
b ) rigid and economical movement in the pipeline scouring pig launch bay,
c) martial bearing in M’s office,
d) the regrasping of the Walther grip in the Pushkin interrogation,
e) drinking whisky with Leiter,
f) his protectiveness of Kara in Afghanistan,
g) frustration in the Hercules as he tries to communicate with Kara,
h) frantic grip on the Hercules controls to evade oncoming, landing plane.
Dalton’s performance conveys the effort of survival, the pain of being hit, the exhilaration of escape, and the spoils of seduction.
He went back to the humanity of the man from the novels and injected as much of the man as the script would allow. In M’s office, a cut scene containing a brief rumination on accidie allowed Dalton to inject some overt world-weariness into his Bond. Dalton had wisely asked for one-liners to be removed and his Bond is a taciturn intelligence operative. Marketed as "The Most Dangerous Bond...Ever", Dalton’s lupine looks and careful publicity heralded a finely wrought, unsurpassed approach to the characterization of Ian Fleming’s James Bond.
The Dalton Defence
The film is not without humour but it is a different sort of humour to that of previous Bonds, especially the Roger Moore era. In TLD, there is little outright comedy. This has been replaced by comic relief. Brief relief, perfectly in keeping with the darker, moodier, thriller tone. One doesn’t laugh, one smiles:
1) The gag of landing on the boat in the PTS.
2) Bond: “Why me?” Saunders: “He’s under the impression you’re the best.”
3) Koskov’s overdone embrace of Bond.
4) “Section 25 paragraph 6, I’m sure you understand.”
5) "You're the first..."
6) The classic “Why didn’t you learn to play the violin” jump cut.
7) “Salt corrosion”
8) "We've nothing to declare" "Except a cello-lo-lo-lo..."
9) The exasperated fair ground worker’s “No more” after Bond’s sharp shooting bags yet another prize.
10) “Kara, we’re in the middle of a Russian airbase…”
11) “Are you calling me a horse’s [censored]?”
All these moments emanate from the humanity of Bond and give TLD a gentler tone, complementing the harder edge to the character and the deeper romance. However, after 14 years a broader, more predictable, pantomime humour was expected. When this surfaced in the film occasionally, it highlighted Dalton’s weakness for flippancy e.g. “Amazing this modern safety glass". The script’s major weakness was a lack of well-written, witty humour. Dalton is adept at playing darkly humorous characters (Framed, The Rocketeer) but he is seemingly not a natural improviser and cannot conjure what is not on the page. The new, subtler approach was lost on some audiences.
However, Timothy Dalton was simply too good an actor and presence for the story and dialogue and general direction of the film. A more linear, more direct storyline would have showcased his particular talents for capturing the spirit and essence of the character of James Bond found in the writing of Ian Fleming. His interpretation of Bond will endure and be discovered by those audiences and fans in time. Timothy Dalton was arguably the best James Bond in the entire series.
Your defense of Dalton as judged by his movements is spot-on. I agree completely.
If I were to freeze one singular moment that absolutely defines Dalton as 007 it is the moment at the briefing where he hisses out, through a haze of smoke, "Death to spies, Minister." (Fleming would be ECSTATIC!)
And, lets not forget the defining moment when Bond bursts the balloon. Has 007 ever looked more crazed? An electrifying scene for Dalton.
Dalton too dark and serious? Not charming enough? Tries too hard? Bland? Light-weight?
You can criticize Dalton all you want (and really, be honest, the more you dislike Dalton as 007, the more it proves that Dalton was the only actor of the 6 who DARED you to dislike him). And, that, made him (especially after Roger) the boldest actor in the bunch.
You can be sure that Dalton's two performances will be dissected with sub-atomic precision as long as Bond-fans dissect 007.
Two camps will emerge: Was Dalton 'tense" or "intense"? (as has already been pointed out).
I, for one, thought he was great Bond. With a little more polish and panache (check Tim out in The Rocketeer) he would have been better loved.
But here's the point: no one tried to do what Dalton did,
Dalton's performance is based on the Bond in the books. No one else even comes close to Fleming. (Perhaps Craig). Oh. sure, there are elements of the literary Bond in all the 007's, but Dalton was the only one who really tried to capture the moodiness of the character...and for that he got both praised and burned.
TOOTS makes a bold statement in saying that, arguably, Dalton is the best Bond in the series.
I cannot agree with that. (Big Sean is No.1 forever).
But I can speculate on who would agree.
If Ian Fleming were alive today, I would take a guess that his favorite 007 would be Dalton.
Some really great analysis in the last two posts. On Bond actors I would observe:
Sean Connery, is gifted with a very strong film presence, which overpowers every role he plays in the same way that Clark Gable and John Wayne were. Connery has never been a chameleon.
Roger Moore, while capable of acting is more of a personality, essentially playing himself instead of a charecter.
Timothy Dalton, a very good actor who actually tried to play the role right from the books. His Bond was superb!!! We were all cheated when his tenure was cut short.
Daniel Craig's oo7 is almost identical to Dalton, but Craig had the very strong advantage of the "reboot"!
P.S.
For Brosnan - see Roger Moore
For Lazenby - first person to take over from Connery was doomed before he got off the casting couch.
Sean Connery, is gifted with a very strong film presence, which overpowers every role he plays in the same way that Clark Gable and John Wayne were. Connery has never been a chameleon.
I agree. Although I consider Connery to have been the best to ever have played Bond, when it comes to chameleon-like abilites, he is no De Niro.
Roger Moore, while capable of acting is more of a personality, essentially playing himself instead of a charecter.
Athough I consider Moore to have been the third best Bond, and three of his performances are in my top 10 Bond performance list, I agree that he is perhaps more of a personality than a brilliant actor.
Timothy Dalton, a very good actor who actually tried to play the role right from the books. His Bond was superb!!! We were all cheated when his tenure was cut short.
All I will say is that I very much disagree. Although I agree that he is a very good actor, I consider his Bond to have been the worst and his two performances to be the two worst Bond performances of all time. In my ideal world, he would never have played Bond.
Daniel Craig's oo7 is almost identical to Dalton, but Craig had the very strong advantage of the "reboot"!
Craig is my fourth favourite, or third least-favourite, Bond. He's a pretty good actor (although his acting abilites are IMO extremely overstated) but I think he's a pretty disappointing Bond. I don't think he's a horrible Bond, like Dalton and Lazenby, but I am very much looking forward to the end of his tenure.
I think you're underestimating Brosnan's acting abilites. While I don't think that he's a brilliant actor (like Connery) I do think that he is quite good. Nonetheless, he's my second favourite Bond with two performances featuring in my top 10 Bond performance list, and his other two performances (TND and DAD) being IMO among the best things in their respective films. IMO he remains the last truly great Bond, and was only the third truly great Bond after Connery and Moore.
For Lazenby - first person to take over from Connery was doomed before he got off the casting couch.
Certainly, Connery played a role in how audiences perceived Lazenby, but IMO he was a dreadful Bond, and my second least-favourite Bond, who was unlikely to ever get better. In my ideal world, along with Dalton being replaced by anyone, Lazenby would have been replaced by Connery, or even Moore. Lazenby did however have two things going for him which prevented him from being IMO the worst ever Bond; his physicality and his handling of the final scene.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Thanks for the extensive quotes, it really makes one feel that he has said something interesting....
I was prehaps harsh or dismissive regards Lazenby. I think he put alot of effort into the part and am sure that given the chance we would have matured into a Bond that would have carried oo7 through the "Moore era" of films with more creditability.
I recall a time when the thought of anyone but Connery as oo7 was a nightmare, but nothing lasts forever and in retrospect, old Sean went two films to far with his oo7.
The difficulty stems from comparing Daniel Craig in CR to Connery in FRWL or Moore in FYEO, films made decades apart, with great differences in direction and style.
I feel that the real oo7 is in Fleming's books, and not in the often silly scripts that EON has produced. No matter how Dalton works into your own vision of Bond, he is the only actor to read all the books, and use them for inspiration.
Connery has always been dismissive of Fleming and his books, I am sure Roger Moore never read them and Lazenby based his Bond on Connery.
As for Pierce Brosnan, I think he was a logical replacement for Moore, but I always felt that after GE Brosnan found Bond was not a part to be played but a "cow to be milked", and like Moore, and Connery in his later turns, was only putting in time to pick up a paycheck.
Bond 22 will show us if Craig is really playing a part the best he can or picking up a paycheck. Till then I put Dalton into my "pantheon of personal heros".
Personally, though, Dalton is my second favourite Bond after Connery, but Dalton definitely is the one who interpretes the character of Bond the closest to the literary character.
What Dalton did or tried to do was make him more human. You see him in pain, fighting for his life living fast with the idea that he won't live long in his two films. Its something Moore didn't do you, in my view you never got the sense that he was in danger in his films as he never played that. Dalton played the danger, he didn't want his bond to be an gipping unstoppable superman. Craig has done a similar thing with his bond in making him human.
What Dalton did or tried to do was make him more human. You see him in pain, fighting for his life living fast with the idea that he won't live long in his two films. Its something Moore didn't do you, in my view you never got the sense that he was in danger in his films as he never played that. Dalton played the danger, he didn't want his bond to be an gipping unstoppable superman. Craig has done a similar thing with his bond in making him human.
Exactly. At moments in his movies, you are just on the edge of your seat wondering how he is going to get out of his position. He takes the situation seriously. Moore acted like everything was a big joke. Connery never got into much trouble, but when he did, he fought back like he was an invincible maniac. Now Dalton was not invincible. He was closer to reality. He knew he could be killed. Craig, like farscapeak said, was also like that.
Connery's movies have in get in tight spots but like what Georgiboy said he could get out of them. He never lost that super side of him as it was part of his coolness yet he was more human than Moore played nothing but the super side of bond. Back to Dalton he was more human that was what interested him as an actor. Those moments where bond questions himself, is in danger or is in over his head.
LazenbyThe upper reaches of the AmazoPosts: 606MI6 Agent
Back to Dalton he was more human that was what interested him as an actor. Those moments where bond questions himself, is in danger or is in over his head.
This what we Flemingists refer to as the Literary Bond
Dalton had the right idea, IMO, but got the wrong scripts and director. It would not be until 2006 that this sort of thing really started to gel on the big screen, from my own personal point of view.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Comments
FYEO got an A+
Did you know that Fleming, when he signed over the rights to the books, indicated that they could use only the title from TSWLM? I found it kind of funny that the 1967 CR contained more Fleming than 3 of the other films put together.
And deservedly so. Intellectual integrity demands I grant FYEO that and I happily concede that it's probably the 1981 Bond film's strongest redeeming feature, along with the OHMSS references, the locations and stunts, and a strong & beautiful leading lady in Carole Bouquet's Melina(who should have appeared opposite Dalton's Bond IMHO but that's a subject for another thread). However, that anti-climactic final 1/3(the Meteora battle is probably my least favorite Bond final battle), Lynn Holly Johnson's annoying Bibi, and the film's failure to milk the ATAC threat against the UK for more suspense and excitement prevent me from liking it as much as almost everybody else(or at least it seems that way) does.
I'm guess I'm a fan who when he wants to watch a faithful-to-Fleming Bond film, I want Connery, Dalton or (now) Craig playing Bond instead of Moore and if I want to watch a Moore Bond I want to see a silly action comedy with little fidelity to Fleming(though OP does deservedly get an A- and I do love that one). Just the kinda fan I am I guess.
Yes.
I was worried when they were filming CR that the 1967 CR would end up being more faithful than the 2006 CR.
Substitute Lazenby for Dalton and I agree completely.
Same, and that's the precise reason I don't rate FYEO as highly as some of Moore's other movies.
Her presence in that movie was justified entirely with Moore's line about buying her an ice cream lol. That being said I bet Connery's Bond would have jumped into bed with her.
Pretty sure Fleming is still spinning in his grave over the teeny-bopper ice skater character...perhaps the most unFleming character ever in the film series IMO. And the other female lead, while very lovely to look at, couldn't act. Intent with FYEO gets an A+, but the execution is more like a D.
If he ever stopped spinning over the hollowed out volcano and the SPECTRE rocket ship that violates all known laws of physics.
Is that right? Well, I've just learnt something new today. Can you please elaborate as to why that is?
Well, I'm no Fleming expert, and I've never read the book, but from what I understand that book was different from all the other books in the series in that it was written from the perspective of a woman and didn't feature Bond until the last 1/3. I can only speculate, but perhaps he never felt confident enough in it. I don't know... (I'm sure someone around here will be able to provide a better explanation.)
Critical reaction at the time was appalling ("morbid", "silly...unpleasant") and the book did not sell as well as its predecessors. In addition, it was banned in some countries.
Fleming's reaction was in effect to pull the plug on the work and let it die. He stipulated to his publishers that there was to be no paperback edition of the novel, and had Broccoli & Saltzman agree that they would only use the title should they get round to filming it. It was only after his death that a paperback was issued following some debate between the publishers and his heirs.
Did anyone watch Miss Marple last night? Dalton......superb! Even if he was killed off early!
So we have seen Marple and Hot Fuzz now we need to see more from this underated chap.
I saw the episode when it first aired. I thought he was excellent too. Hopefully the work will keep coming. Has Hot Fuzz opened in the US yet?
It was released on 14 March.
I do like both of his Bond movies. "The Living Daylights" is my favorite of the two. It's one of my top Bond movies. I do think it and "Licence to Kill" make up for each other. "TLD" lacked strong villains, but "LTK" lacked the exotic locales. Each had its strong points and weaknesses.
I wish that Timothy Dalton would have taken over at least by "A View To A Kill." That's one of my least favorite Bond movies (good theme song though) and I don't think Moore did much to help it. I think he was getting a little old by then and was just going through the motions. Dalton might have been able to do better with it. Honestly I could have seen him do Moore's last couple of films.
Also I could have seen Lazenby staying on after "OHMSS." Connery shouldn't have come back for one last time. Plus he was starting to look pretty bad during this time period. Lazenby should have done a couple of more Bond films. I really wish that Dalton would have taken over for him, but then I hate to see Roger Moore's contribution to the franchise taken away altogether.
As well, I do think it would have been nice to see Dalton have done "Goldeneye." That's my favorite of Brosnan's Bond movies. I think it would have been even better with the way Dalton played the part.
I enjoyed watching Dalton's Bond movies as a teenager. I know a lot of people talked negatively about him then and still do. Recently I rewatched them and realized he was a better Bond than I even remembered. My sister has just gotten into watching the Bond movies. She had always held little interest in them, but "Casino Royale" changed that. So far she's seen all of Brosnan's and Dalton's. She's also seen "Dr. No." She said that Dalton by far is her favorite. She likes him better than Connery, which did surprise me I guess.
I do think Dalton deserves more praise and recognition than he's gotten. It does seem like he's getting that now in hindsight and with Craig's take on Bond in "Casino Royale."
Mmmhmm, and Dalton couldn't have been better if he tried. What a superb performance. I seriously suggest you watch it as soon as possible, if not for anything except the number of familiar faces in the cast.
{[] Already seen it. Thought Dalton was great, but the film itself was a bit of a let-down.
A Quiet Revolution
When The Living Daylights was released, a quiet revolution happened in the world of James Bond. All of a sudden, what opened up in film Bond were possibilities. A Bond film no longer had to be a circus or a pantomime but could attempt to return to its roots – that of the contemporary, Hitchcock-ian, romantic, intelligent, international, mystery, thriller.
A story murky with recent Iran-Contra-gate topicality, this 15th Eon Bond film was a character-led tale of intrigue that was difficult to summarize for the press. Said press were already antagonized by a new leading man who kept an air of mystery about his personal life. In order to fully appreciate what Timothy Dalton brought to 007, one would have to have been a James Bond fan before he was cast. The long and successful reign of Roger Moore was an achievement in itself but the Press had been rather spoilt by 14 years of media-friendly frolics. Dalton’s distance did not endear him to them. Their view was, “It’s only a Bond film, lighten up.”
However, for the first time, the actor playing Bond had read all 14 Fleming Bond books, researched and knew about Fleming (allegedly keeping a copy of John Pearson’s Fleming biography on his bedside table) and had a keen sense of what he wanted to achieve: something different yet classic.
The Dalton Effect
Upon his announcement as Bond on 6th August 1986, Dalton was a relatively unknown, leading man/working actor. However, this became an important aspect to the thrill of his debut. This lack of knowledge about the actor made his Bond unpredictable. On first viewing, the PTS and the defection in Bratislava were dangerous, involving and atmospheric. When trailing Kara and meeting in her flat, Bond was intense - his careful phrasing making their conversation a chess game of circumstance. When Bond interrogates Pushkin, it is tough and ruthless and even Rubavitch (sic?) is not spared. When Bond is beaten in the Afghan jail, there’s no pithy comeback. Just when one thought a one-liner was coming, it didn’t. To an audience weaned on 14 years of suaveness, this was a revelation. Out of context now, these grace notes are lost.
In TLD, few scenes are written to showcase character. Character is revealed through the plot. Dalton presents Bond as a reluctant yet ruthless romantic protagonist. A man of action and energy, living on the edge, Dalton is in the centre, running, jumping, fighting and shooting with conviction. He details his performance with nuggets of information and emotion:
a) cigarette smoke escaping on hearing Koskov’s report of Smiert Spionam – hot air,
b ) rigid and economical movement in the pipeline scouring pig launch bay,
c) martial bearing in M’s office,
d) the regrasping of the Walther grip in the Pushkin interrogation,
e) drinking whisky with Leiter,
f) his protectiveness of Kara in Afghanistan,
g) frustration in the Hercules as he tries to communicate with Kara,
h) frantic grip on the Hercules controls to evade oncoming, landing plane.
Dalton’s performance conveys the effort of survival, the pain of being hit, the exhilaration of escape, and the spoils of seduction.
He went back to the humanity of the man from the novels and injected as much of the man as the script would allow. In M’s office, a cut scene containing a brief rumination on accidie allowed Dalton to inject some overt world-weariness into his Bond. Dalton had wisely asked for one-liners to be removed and his Bond is a taciturn intelligence operative. Marketed as "The Most Dangerous Bond...Ever", Dalton’s lupine looks and careful publicity heralded a finely wrought, unsurpassed approach to the characterization of Ian Fleming’s James Bond.
The Dalton Defence
The film is not without humour but it is a different sort of humour to that of previous Bonds, especially the Roger Moore era. In TLD, there is little outright comedy. This has been replaced by comic relief. Brief relief, perfectly in keeping with the darker, moodier, thriller tone. One doesn’t laugh, one smiles:
1) The gag of landing on the boat in the PTS.
2) Bond: “Why me?” Saunders: “He’s under the impression you’re the best.”
3) Koskov’s overdone embrace of Bond.
4) “Section 25 paragraph 6, I’m sure you understand.”
5) "You're the first..."
6) The classic “Why didn’t you learn to play the violin” jump cut.
7) “Salt corrosion”
8) "We've nothing to declare" "Except a cello-lo-lo-lo..."
9) The exasperated fair ground worker’s “No more” after Bond’s sharp shooting bags yet another prize.
10) “Kara, we’re in the middle of a Russian airbase…”
11) “Are you calling me a horse’s [censored]?”
All these moments emanate from the humanity of Bond and give TLD a gentler tone, complementing the harder edge to the character and the deeper romance. However, after 14 years a broader, more predictable, pantomime humour was expected. When this surfaced in the film occasionally, it highlighted Dalton’s weakness for flippancy e.g. “Amazing this modern safety glass". The script’s major weakness was a lack of well-written, witty humour. Dalton is adept at playing darkly humorous characters (Framed, The Rocketeer) but he is seemingly not a natural improviser and cannot conjure what is not on the page. The new, subtler approach was lost on some audiences.
However, Timothy Dalton was simply too good an actor and presence for the story and dialogue and general direction of the film. A more linear, more direct storyline would have showcased his particular talents for capturing the spirit and essence of the character of James Bond found in the writing of Ian Fleming. His interpretation of Bond will endure and be discovered by those audiences and fans in time. Timothy Dalton was arguably the best James Bond in the entire series.
Your defense of Dalton as judged by his movements is spot-on. I agree completely.
If I were to freeze one singular moment that absolutely defines Dalton as 007 it is the moment at the briefing where he hisses out, through a haze of smoke, "Death to spies, Minister." (Fleming would be ECSTATIC!)
And, lets not forget the defining moment when Bond bursts the balloon. Has 007 ever looked more crazed? An electrifying scene for Dalton.
Dalton too dark and serious? Not charming enough? Tries too hard? Bland? Light-weight?
You can criticize Dalton all you want (and really, be honest, the more you dislike Dalton as 007, the more it proves that Dalton was the only actor of the 6 who DARED you to dislike him). And, that, made him (especially after Roger) the boldest actor in the bunch.
You can be sure that Dalton's two performances will be dissected with sub-atomic precision as long as Bond-fans dissect 007.
Two camps will emerge: Was Dalton 'tense" or "intense"? (as has already been pointed out).
I, for one, thought he was great Bond. With a little more polish and panache (check Tim out in The Rocketeer) he would have been better loved.
But here's the point: no one tried to do what Dalton did,
Dalton's performance is based on the Bond in the books. No one else even comes close to Fleming. (Perhaps Craig). Oh. sure, there are elements of the literary Bond in all the 007's, but Dalton was the only one who really tried to capture the moodiness of the character...and for that he got both praised and burned.
TOOTS makes a bold statement in saying that, arguably, Dalton is the best Bond in the series.
I cannot agree with that. (Big Sean is No.1 forever).
But I can speculate on who would agree.
If Ian Fleming were alive today, I would take a guess that his favorite 007 would be Dalton.
Dalton rocks.
"Yes. I got the message."
Sean Connery, is gifted with a very strong film presence, which overpowers every role he plays in the same way that Clark Gable and John Wayne were. Connery has never been a chameleon.
Roger Moore, while capable of acting is more of a personality, essentially playing himself instead of a charecter.
Timothy Dalton, a very good actor who actually tried to play the role right from the books. His Bond was superb!!! We were all cheated when his tenure was cut short.
Daniel Craig's oo7 is almost identical to Dalton, but Craig had the very strong advantage of the "reboot"!
P.S.
For Brosnan - see Roger Moore
For Lazenby - first person to take over from Connery was doomed before he got off the casting couch.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Athough I consider Moore to have been the third best Bond, and three of his performances are in my top 10 Bond performance list, I agree that he is perhaps more of a personality than a brilliant actor.
All I will say is that I very much disagree. Although I agree that he is a very good actor, I consider his Bond to have been the worst and his two performances to be the two worst Bond performances of all time. In my ideal world, he would never have played Bond.
Craig is my fourth favourite, or third least-favourite, Bond. He's a pretty good actor (although his acting abilites are IMO extremely overstated) but I think he's a pretty disappointing Bond. I don't think he's a horrible Bond, like Dalton and Lazenby, but I am very much looking forward to the end of his tenure.
I think you're underestimating Brosnan's acting abilites. While I don't think that he's a brilliant actor (like Connery) I do think that he is quite good. Nonetheless, he's my second favourite Bond with two performances featuring in my top 10 Bond performance list, and his other two performances (TND and DAD) being IMO among the best things in their respective films. IMO he remains the last truly great Bond, and was only the third truly great Bond after Connery and Moore.
Certainly, Connery played a role in how audiences perceived Lazenby, but IMO he was a dreadful Bond, and my second least-favourite Bond, who was unlikely to ever get better. In my ideal world, along with Dalton being replaced by anyone, Lazenby would have been replaced by Connery, or even Moore. Lazenby did however have two things going for him which prevented him from being IMO the worst ever Bond; his physicality and his handling of the final scene.
Thanks for the extensive quotes, it really makes one feel that he has said something interesting....
I was prehaps harsh or dismissive regards Lazenby. I think he put alot of effort into the part and am sure that given the chance we would have matured into a Bond that would have carried oo7 through the "Moore era" of films with more creditability.
I recall a time when the thought of anyone but Connery as oo7 was a nightmare, but nothing lasts forever and in retrospect, old Sean went two films to far with his oo7.
The difficulty stems from comparing Daniel Craig in CR to Connery in FRWL or Moore in FYEO, films made decades apart, with great differences in direction and style.
I feel that the real oo7 is in Fleming's books, and not in the often silly scripts that EON has produced. No matter how Dalton works into your own vision of Bond, he is the only actor to read all the books, and use them for inspiration.
Connery has always been dismissive of Fleming and his books, I am sure Roger Moore never read them and Lazenby based his Bond on Connery.
As for Pierce Brosnan, I think he was a logical replacement for Moore, but I always felt that after GE Brosnan found Bond was not a part to be played but a "cow to be milked", and like Moore, and Connery in his later turns, was only putting in time to pick up a paycheck.
Bond 22 will show us if Craig is really playing a part the best he can or picking up a paycheck. Till then I put Dalton into my "pantheon of personal heros".
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Personally, though, Dalton is my second favourite Bond after Connery, but Dalton definitely is the one who interpretes the character of Bond the closest to the literary character.
Exactly. At moments in his movies, you are just on the edge of your seat wondering how he is going to get out of his position. He takes the situation seriously. Moore acted like everything was a big joke. Connery never got into much trouble, but when he did, he fought back like he was an invincible maniac. Now Dalton was not invincible. He was closer to reality. He knew he could be killed. Craig, like farscapeak said, was also like that.
It's worth pointing out that the criminally underrated George Lazenby was the first to really try and do this.
This what we Flemingists refer to as the Literary Bond
Dalton had the right idea, IMO, but got the wrong scripts and director. It would not be until 2006 that this sort of thing really started to gel on the big screen, from my own personal point of view.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM